Pages

April 14, 2011

Guest post by Argiedude: A West-East Y-DNA gradient in Iberia?

What follows was sent to me by Argiedude with offer of publishing. I believe it has some interest, so here it is, however publication does not necessarily imply agreement by the blog's author (see comments section).

_____________________________

I've made a map of the main y-dna haplogroups of Iberia, using all the y-dna studies I could find, totaling some 3000 Spanish and 2000 Portuguese samples, though it varies depending on the haplogroup. The graph below shows the results:

click to enlarge

There are 10 haplogroups, excluding SRY-2627 and M153, which are redundant with R1b1b2. 7 of the 10 have clear east-west gradients. The other 3 have no gradient, though for G a weak east-west gradient could be argued. None have a north-south gradient.

Not only is there an east-west gradient, but it follows a specific pattern, dividing Iberia into 2 halves. And there is a curious anomaly in the otherwise perfect 2 halves, which can be easily seen in the image below:

Valencia, in the far east, consistently has a y-dna composition that is more akin to western Iberia. The image even underestimates this similarity, because E-M81 is higher in Valencia than in the rest of east Iberia, but it just barely didn't make the threshold to be included with the western half, so the image shows Valencia as scoring 4 of 6 similarity with western Iberia when it should perhaps be 5 of 6 (after including E-M81). I didn't include a few haplogroups because they were too small (1% or less frequency), but 2 of them, E-M123 and E1a1+E1b1a, also had a frequency peak in Valencia higher than in the rest of east Iberia and similar to western Iberia. So I don't think that the results for Valencia are random. As a final note, Valencia consisted of 300 samples, which is a respectable sample size.

The frequencies in the western half seems to be more uniform, while the frequencies in the eastern half are more jumpy. In particular, the west coastal strip, from south Portugal to Galicia, is remarkably similar, in all haplogroups. I think the y-dna of Iberia used to be like western Iberia today. There was a disruption that altered the eastern half. This would explain the anomaly of Valencia: it wasn't as badly affected by the disruption as the rest of east Iberia, thus retaining a more western y-dna composition.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TMRCA

E-M81 has one of the youngest age estimates (TMRCA) of any major haplogroup, about 2000 years old. The first image shows it to follow the typical east-west pattern in Iberia almost perfectly, second only to R1b1b2 (which is perfect). So was E-M81 part of the original older stratum of y-dna in Iberia? This would fly in the face of the TMRCA age estimates for E-M81. E-M81 is so young, and at the same time identical in haplotype to North African E-M81, that we are forced to adscribe its presence in Iberia to the Arab invasion starting in 700 AD. But the maps paint a completely different picture, not only showing a geographic distribution that makes no sense at all with a historic Arab origin, but also because E-M81's notorious similarity to the repeat pattern of east-west distribution seen in most other haplogroups indicates that its distribution must have been molded by whatever events also produced the distribution patterns in all those other haplogroups. It seems extremely unlikely that E-M81 would have been born 2000 years ago in North Africa, became diffused in Iberia between 700 AD and 1200 AD, and only then something occured which rearranged Iberia's y-dna, all of it, into the now observed patterns of east and west halves. This unlikely scenario would have to be nothing less than a complete and total population rearrangement, no half measures, given that E-M81 is actually higher (much higher) in regions barely occupied by the Moors than in the stronghold of Granada, where the Moors ruled for 800 years.

It should also be noted that North Africa has 2 major haplogroups, E-M81 and J1-L222, found at about 50% and 25% respectively, from Morocco to Libya. But in Iberia, while E-M81 is present at 4% in Spain and 5% in Portugal, J1-L222 is not found at all in Portugal and is only found at 0.05% in Spain. This is also repeated in thousands of Latin American samples, where E-M81 is about 4% and J1-L222 is 0.1%. A historic recent diffusion from North Africa would obviously have spread 2 E-M81 samples for every 1 J1-L222 sample, as per their frequencies in North Africa, but instead we see that the ratio between E-M81 and J1-L222 in Iberia is 75 to 1. Likewise in south Italy the ratio is 20 to 1.

To summarize, on top of previous evidence over the last 2 years undermining the extremely young age estimate of E-M81, which consisted of the obvious east-west distribution of E-M81 in Iberia and the anomaly of J1-L222 not being found even close to proportion with the presence of E-M81 in Iberia, we can now add the fact that E-M81's distribution in Iberia isn't an oddity, but in fact the typical pattern of distribution of most Iberian haplogroups, which obviously points to deeper causes for its diffusion in the peninsula, unless Iberia's population has been completely and totally rearranged in very recent history. This is not just about Iberia, but about the theory of TMRCA itself, which as you may have guessed by now, I completely disagree with: I think all y-dna haplogroups are older than their currently estimated ages (per TMRCA) by orders of multiples.

A final note to round out this observation is the fact that most haplogroups are higher in the west than in the east, which sometimes really doesn't make sense, most notably in the case of E-V13, which would have come from eastern Europe via land and should have had a higher frequency in east Iberia.

ODDS AND ENDS OF IBERIA'S Y-DNA

Ibiza has 2 clusters specific to its island in the haplogroups G and T. The cluster in G has a modal haplotype identical to the general G haplotype, but the T cluster has a very distinctive modal haplotype, which I haven't found in any sample from anywhere else in Iberia or Latin America; so far, it's only observed in Ibiza, not even Majorca and Minorca.

There's something strange going on in the Cantabria/Basque region. Cantabria has an unusually very high rate for R1a and E-M81, and the Basques for R-M153. Very few regions have any single haplogroup with a highly divergent frequency, but these 2 neighbors manage to have 3 such events. The y-dna differences between Basque and Cantabria are the sharpest y-dna clines by far in Iberia. And of course, Cantabria belongs to the western half and the Basques to the eastern half of the Iberian y-dna divide. Cantabria's R1a and E-M81 seem to extend westwards, resulting in lower but still unusually high frequencies of both haplogroups in Galicia, Asturias, and Castile, but in both cases the haplogroups can't manage to diffuse eastwards even as far as the Basque region. Likewise, R-M153, very high in the Basque region, has a notable tendency to spread to the rest of east Iberia, but it can hardly manage to cross west into Cantabria and beyond.

The haplogroups I included in these images amounted to 93% of Iberia's y-dna. Most of the remaining 7% belonged to E1b1b (M35) lineages, except E-M81 and E-V13.

53 comments:

As I told you by email, I think that the East-West gradient, excepting the very clear case of E1b1b1b1-M81 (and maybe T and R1a), are not really significant.

The main pattern we see in fact is a decrease in the frequency of R1b1b2a1 (or R1b1b2) towards the West. A decrease of almost 20 percentile points (21 if we include I2a1). This can be attributed as follows:

- 6 points (30%) to E1b1b1b1-M81- 4 points (20%) to "Indoeuropean lineages" R1a and I1 (though they are not really clearly describing this cline but rather scattered in "random" patterns). - 9 points (50%) to an array of "Neolithic" lineages E(xE1b1b1b1), J, G, T - but none of them specially influential on its own right.

So essentially the debate would be to understand if E-M81 hitchhiked the Neolithic lineages in a founder effect in West Iberia (but not in the East, notably not Valencia) or it was there from an older migration.

I am not sure but I have proposed in the past that the E-M81 founder effect in West Iberia reflects an older founder effect of Solutrean age. As you know, I do not care about TRMCA guesstimates, so these are no obstacle for me.

Whatever the case it's clear that this is no "Muslim" founder effect but much older. But I do not see clear that this gradient of E-M81 is the same thing as the one described (much less clearly) by the Neolithic (East Mediterranean) lineages (E-V13, J1, J2, G, T).

A further question is what is all that E1b1b-other. One would expect almost all E to be M81 (North African) V13 (Albanian/Greek) but what we see instead is a large 5-6% E1b1b-other (described in your graphs as E3b, a long obsolete nomenclature).

1.- The lack of J1 in Iberia is clearly supportive of an older age for the E-M81 founder effect. I'd say that NW African J1 has largely a Capsian origin (Late Paleolithic to Neolithic and shows an East to West gradient therefore). Your idea of North African J1 somehow proving the antiquity of E1b1b1b1 in Iberia had also occurred to me.

2.- The Cantabrian (and Asturian) cases could support the Solutrean date for this E-M81 founder effect. Asturian Solutrean originated in Iberia (is the same "Gravettized" facies as in Portugal and SE Iberia), while Basque Solutrean is related to Aquitaine instead.

Cantabrian Solutrean was also related to Aquitaine but Magdalenian instead was in the same facies as that of Asturias (distinct from the Basque one).

However we also see in your maps strong influence of other "Neolithic" or post-Neolithic lineages in these two regions, so it is not impossible, I guess that they were recolonized from the West at some point (when?)

Maju, are you basing your observation on the map with the piecharts? Because T and R1a are among the haplogroups with the weakest gradients, in fact for R1a I listed it as having no gradient. The main graph is "Iberia y-dna - final haplogroup analysis.gif", with the dozen maps of Iberia. It shows at the top the 6 haplogreoups that I think have an evident east-west gradient.

Some typing errors:

had a frequency peak in Valencia higher than in the rest of Iberia

had a frequency peak in Valencia higher than in the rest of east Iberia

The piechart graph is kind of secondary. The main graph is the one with the dozen small maps of Iberia. So as to not cause confusion, could you move the piechart graph (the one that says "Below without R1b1b2") to the bottom of the post?

"Maju, are you basing your observation on the map with the piecharts?"

Yes I was using the piecharts as reference, because R1a and T in them have frequency changes of maybe 200% or more, while other clades have frequency changes of 20-30% at most.

Anyhow, if we are to use the small maps, which I agree are more clear, the frequencies are so low for most haplogroups (seldom >3%) that it's really very tentative to say anything. Only R1b1b2(a1) and E1b1b1b1 show a clear gradient.

The real question is whether the difference between 2% and 1% (or even between 3% and 0%) is meaningful in any clear sense. This is the case with all the "Neolithic" (Eastern Mediterranean) lineages (excepting G and J2, the most common ones, which show no clear cline).

I am still puzzled about the fact, that the closest north African region to Europe ,was never sampled !the Rif region,specially the western part , may reveal and shed some lights on the migratory routes of the north African lineages to Iberia , and the Iberian lineages in north Africa...http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8632/l2rapportsthematiques01.jpg

dalouh, a study by Zalloua in 2008 (which sucks) tested Tangier, Morocco. I found out his samples came from Tangier only from a BBC news article about the study, in the study itself the data is labeled simply Morocco. It's filled with errors like few studies, but still, it's clear that Tangier is typically Moroccan. They had 2% R1b1b2 and more than 60% E-M81 and 10% to 15% J1.

Correction, more like 6% J1; the level of errors in this study must be a record.

-----------

Studies of heterozygosity have shown that Europe's autosomal diversity has a decreasing cline from south to north. But if we're to believe the story according to the theory of TMRCA, then there would be a dozen major bottleneck events in the last 3000 years that produced R1b, E-V13, I1, etc. The heterozygosity map should be a random pattern reflecting the many expansion events of the last 3000 years. Aside from the simply unreal notion that such a thing could actually happen, especially in the case of the most recent haplogroups such as E-M81 and M222.

No, I think the lineages diffused uniformly, but something happened in east Iberia causing their R1b1b2 to increase, and consequetly their non-R1b1b2 lineages to decrease, creating the appearance that the west had a greater inflow of non-R1b1b2 lineages such as E-M81, E-V13, or T.

-The populations from the Iberian peninsula (and Europe as well) are not homogeneous.-Recent migrations (< 2.000 years) can result in deep changes in the receptor populations.-It's nearly impossible to know who were our ancestors and when arrived there from what place, if we don't even know how old are these haplogroups.-The genetic composition of the Iberian peninsula looks nothing like that of 5.000 years ago.-North Africa has played a much important role in the genetic composition of European peoples (specially those of from the west) than what's generally assumed.

In order for R1b1b2(a1) to increase we'd need to identify a source population with even greater frequency of this lineage: something practically impossible because this area has one of the greatest frequencies worldwide. In addition one would need to identify a plausible migration causing this change.

Instead I propose:

1. A basic layer of R1b1b2a1 (maybe with I2a1 as well)

2. An inflow of E1b1b1b1 to (mostly) West Iberia

3. A small but rather homogeneous inflow of Eastern Mediterranean lineages (J, G, E-V13, T).

4. A small but rather homogeneous inflow of North/NE European lineages (R1a, I1, I2b)

The process happened in this sequence. We can identify layer 4 with Indoeuropean arrivals (Celts mostly) and layer 3 with Neolithic arrivals, so layer 2 and 1 must be pre-Neolithic.

"Recent migrations (< 2.000 years) can result in deep changes in the receptor populations".

There have been no such "recent migrations" that can be clearly identified, changes in political rulership probably moved very few people around and mostly from nearby areas.

"The genetic composition of the Iberian peninsula looks nothing like that of 5.000 years ago".

On the contrary: it looks almost the same, 5000, 7000 and 9000 years ago (i.e. before Neolithic).

"North Africa has played a much important role in the genetic composition of European peoples (specially those of from the west) than what's generally assumed".

Not really. The opposite is rather true: North Africans show a lot of SW European mtDNA (about 30%), while even West Iberians show only maybe 5-6% of North African genetic input, not more.

In Ennafaa 2009, we see that indeed Moroccan Berbers (not specified by regions) are indeed the closest ones to Iberians, having the highest % of mtDNA H in North Africa. But H is (along with V, important at least among Tunisian Berbers, where it reaches up to 16%) the only European lineage that can be detected in North Africa with some clarity (there might be some minor U5 but not much, and K is probably of Neolithic West Asian origin).

Based on Enafaa's H data, we can estimate that Berbers are at least 32% of SW European stock and Arabs at least 23% (though Mauritanians are lower they are not truly a North African population but rather a Sahelian one).

As genetic and cultural flows do not need to be strictly unidirectional (they seldom are in fact) and as some North African influences can be appreciated in the Gravetto-Solutrean of Iberian facies, notably the adoption of back-tip and wings (of Aterian tradition possibly and a continuous feature of North African stone technologies) in their spear/arrow points, we can infer that some people probably crossed the Strait northwards when Iberians of Gravetto-Solutrean culture crossed in southward direction, helping to forge the Oranian (Iberomaurusian) culture in Africa.

That's one of the reasons I believe that E1b1b1b1 (and mtDNA U6) in Iberia is Paleolithic, Solutrean specifically. The marked intrusion in the Astur-Cantabrian area is also best explained, I think, in terms of Solutrean (and later Magdalenian) facies as well.

"On the contrary: it looks almost the same, 5000, 7000 and 9000 years ago (i.e. before Neolithic)."

I agree that 9.000 year-old Iberians and present day Iberians may share a lot of haplogroups, but what I mean, is that, for example, Catalonia received 1.500.000 Spanish immigrants in less than 50 years, so today most "Catalans" have roots in southern and western Iberia. The same may be true for many other regions of Europe.Of course, in the past the migrations were not that big, but for sure they existed. The genetic panorama we'll see in Europe in the next 100 years would differ a lot from the present one.

"Not really. The opposite is rather true: North Africans show a lot of SW European mtDNA (about 30%), while even West Iberians show only maybe 5-6% of North African genetic input"

Yes, maybe it's better to say that these populations are quite closely related, althought we don't know (yet) when these H and V lineages reached North Africa. With these data, I don't understand how some scientists still deny any relationship between Iberia and North Africa, or they only consider the Muslim period.

I saw a comment of you in GNXP; apparently the Irish also have some North African DNA, which arrived from Iberia.

"if the E1b1b1b1 was not the main mate of the mtDNA at Taforalt, than who was it ?"

A combo of R1b1b2, I and E1b1b1b1 (and maybe other now rare lineages).

Taforalt has enough alleged European mtDNA for R1b (still present at low frequencies and mostly also looking of European source) to have been an important male lineage then. Also the Guanche mummies (even if they are obviously post-Capsian) have comparatively quite a lot (7%) of another European lineage: I (unspecified subclade), which was mostly lost upon Castilian conquest (I'm unsure how common is I in North Africa today but it's rare for sure, so it has probably receded).

One would expect the women carrying these mtDNA lineages to have arrived with similar numbers of men. So it seems reasonable to think that if these "European colonists" made up 50% of the North African stock back then (a hunch built on mtDNA apportions) the European male lineages were then, at least initially also some 50%.

That is (very roughly) what we see among the Guanche mummies after we remove E1b1b1a (M78) and J1 (M267), likely: E1b1b1b1 (M81) makes 27%, while R1b1b2+I=17% (+P*+K*=30%).

We can well infer that E1b1b1a-M78 (plus J1) should have arrived to NW Africa with the Capsian culture, because both have more intense connections with the East, with the Red Sea area.

This would make some good sense.

TMRCA age estimates are not C-14: they are mere statistical methods of estimation, often loaded with accumulating errors like the most typical one: the under-estimate of the Pan-Homo divergence, which can't be more recent than 8 Ma but is often said to be only 5.5 Ma and stuff like that. Even the best such statistical estimate is just "a good hunch": nothing to take too seriously. Sadly a fashion has been established on accepting these erudite hunches as something "scientific" (just because they are rich in maths) and it will take some time and effort to restore the natural state of scientific scepticism in this regard.

Still it is more often non-geneticists than geneticists who insist in this, because they are used to rely on authority and, if an authority backs an idea they favor, why are they going to question it?

Typically when making genetic studies some locally rooted pedigree is asked for. I imagine you know that.

As for your 1.5 million immigrants:

1. They are still a minority input (25% of more than six million Catalans)

2. They arrived from nearby areas (Iberian peninsula) and they often return to them upon retirement.

3. They arrived in a context of rapid industrial travel (the same that saw America and Australasia colonized in almost the same period: that of industrial Capitalism). Even in Latin America, where there was a long history of modern colonization, most of the European blood arrived only in the 19th century when globalization was already a very strong reality and travel across the globe was easy, fast and cheap. Similarly most of the ancestors of the residents in North America have arrived only in the last two centuries, after independence. Earlier colonization was weak.

We cannot therefore imagine that things before 1800 were like after 1800. In fact it is most unlikely. Of course there were migrations and colonizations, for example the Drang Nach Östen of the Germans but even today we see clear "Slavic" roots, distinctiveness, in East Germany's DNA. Even such a sustained colonization process was mostly one of assimilation of Slavs into German identity than one of mere colonization.

Whatever the case, I cannot agree that demographic flows before Modern Age were even a fraction of intense as the ones of today. Today people go from, say, Bengal or Angola or China to Europe in a matter of hours (weeks or months if illegally), 500 years ago, they did not go at all (with the occasional exception, of course).

Also in those times, 90% of the people directly lived of the land: they were farmers and could not migrate (or almost) for that very reason: they had crops to tend every season, every year through their whole lives. While the arrival of Neolithic itself may have caused some notable founder effects, once established the populations were almost "frozen in time" until industrialization.

Farmers seldom move.

The main exceptions could be in semidesertic areas like Khazakstan, where population density was always low and the economic base was seminomadic cattle-herding.

"... we don't know (yet) when these H and V lineages reached North Africa".

I think I have considered all possible cases and only the Iberomaurusian (Oranian) genesis stands well.

If you have alternative hypothesis, I'd ask you to put them forward so we can consider and criticize them scientifically. Just appealing for an absolute doubt is not helpful.

"I don't understand how some scientists still deny any relationship between Iberia and North Africa"...

There is a barrier as well. Specially North African influence in Iberia is low (c. 5%), much lower than would be normal if the Strait of Gibraltar would not be there.

It's not that there is no relationship. It is that there is still a lot of differences through a water line only a few kilometers thick.

Also there has been a school that has claimed all that mtDNA H (in Europe too) to be of West Asian direct arrival. This idea does not stand today but there is still a lot of people (like the influential blogger Dienekes Pontikos or also influential FTDNA leader V. Vizachero) who would like to believe that all European DNA (or almost) is of recent Neolithic arrival (including H and V). But really this is very difficult to hold since Ennafaa 2009, Cherni 2008... plus the Taforalt data of Kèfi 2005 (PPT direct download).

In addition, Mathias Currat 2010 (discussed here) strongly supports a (mostly) Paleolithic connection across the strait for all genetic markers.

"I saw a comment of you in GNXP; apparently the Irish also have some North African DNA, which arrived from Iberia".

Some Irish. The case was that Razib had found minor YRI (Yoruba) component among some Irish (from the South) but we know from so many other studies that often YRI in Europe acts as a proxy for North African inputs (which do not show as such for lack of a reference), so I suggested that it may well be that - it is my first thought and I really annoys me when people who are supposedly as brilliant as Razib do not even consider that.

One of the problem (besides their favoring of recent time frames in general) is that they lack a decent knowledge of Prehistory, so they hunch without references as would probably a blind person in a large featureless plaza do.

"apparently the Irish also have some North African DNA, which arrived from Iberia"."

An input arrived with the ancestor of Goidelic languages? ;)

A reference to the Declaration of Arbroath :

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath

"Most Holy Father and Lord, we know from the deeds of the ancients and we read from books -- because among the other great nations of course, our nation of Scots has been described in many publications -- that crossing from Greater Scythia, via the Tyrhennian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and living in Spain among the fiercest tribes for many years, it could be conquered by no one anywhere, no matter how barbarous the tribes. Afterwards, coming from there, one thousand two hundred years from the Israelite people's crossing of the Red Sea, to its home in the west, which it now holds, (...)"

Wag: that was my suggestion. Why? Because Dolmenic Megalithism has its deepest roots in SW Iberia (South Portugal) and this is a region which has some minor but notable North African genetics.

As Dolmenic Megalithism expanded through Atlantic Europe (or related trade-related flows hard to discern) some of those "Portuguese" and their genes should have ended up scattered in the area. Y-DNA E1b1b1b1-M81 is probably the best marker for this because there is no other possible source or scatter process than Dolmenic Megalithism (and related flows) from/via Portugal (or otherwise West Iberia).

But that was my suggestion: the data only said YRI, a clear confirmation of North African or Iberian origin was lacking.

"1. They are still a minority input (25% of more than six million Catalans)"

Most Catalans have Spanish surnames, and indeed, the population was much lower in the sixties than today. About two thirds of Barcelonians were born outside Catalonia. Still, I find the 25% quite high for only 50 years.

http://www.idescat.cat/cognoms/?lang=es

"2. They arrived from nearby areas (Iberian peninsula) and they often return to them upon retirement."

Where are the statistics? From what I know, most of them haven't returned, and have no desire to do it.

"We cannot therefore imagine that things before 1800 were like after 1800. In fact it is most unlikely. Of course there were migrations and colonizations, for example the Drang Nach Östen of the Germans but even today we see clear "Slavic" roots, distinctiveness, in East Germany's DNA. Even such a sustained colonization process was mostly one of assimilation of Slavs into German identity than one of mere colonization. "

I trust you; of course migrations in the past were very different from the present ones, and likely much milder. Once I knew a teacher who told us that by the middle ages about 500.000 Occitans populated Catalonia. There are still many exceptions. For example, North Africa: there were people in the region before 20 Ka, but today 30-50% of mtDNA lineages seem to come from European ancestors.If most opulations have remained the same in the last 10-20-30.000 years, how come we see so big differences between neighboring populations (for example, Basques and Pasiegos)?

"If you have alternative hypothesis, I'd ask you to put them forward so we can consider and criticize them scientifically. Just appealing for an absolute doubt is not helpful. "

Nope, I don't have an alternatively hypothesis, it's just that I've seen too many different dates (ranging from 9.000 to 20.000 years old) for the main colonization of N.A. from Europe across the strait of Gibraltar.

"Some Irish. The case was that Razib had found minor YRI (Yoruba) component among some Irish (from the South) but we know from so many other studies that often YRI in Europe acts as a proxy for North African inputs (which do not show as such for lack of a reference), so I suggested that it may well be that - it is my first thought and I really annoys me when people who are supposedly as brilliant as Razib do not even consider that. "

I also find much more likely a relationship with North Africa from Iberia than with West Africa, but a few years ago an African haplogroup (A1) was found in the isles, so maybe the trade of African slaves can explain something, althought I find highly unlikely that some Irish have such an high % of West African ancestry...

"One would expect the women carrying these mtDNA lineages to have arrived with similar numbers of men. So it seems reasonable to think that if these "European colonists" made up 50% of the North African stock back then (a hunch built on mtDNA apportions) the European male lineages were then, at least initially also some 50%."

wrong interpretation, when it it should be simple...the European mtDNA lineages were wildly successful at least in Morocco...take the high Atlas region south of Marrakech as an example...Asni- mtDNAtotal Eurasian mtDNA : 62 %http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee431/Cuban-Basque/Coudrayetal2009Table-2.jpgAmizmiz- Y-DNAtotal Eurasian Y-DNA : 0 %http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee431/Cuban-Basque/Alvarezetal2009table-1.jpgyes, R1b ,I ...lineages brought over the European females , but, that does not mean that they were as numerous as you suggested....

Never mind what I said about modern migrants. Immigrants to the Basque Country often return upon retirement (and every summer), however they leave their children here, so never mind.

"Once I knew a teacher who told us that by the middle ages about 500.000 Occitans populated Catalonia".

Does that sound credible to you? Not to me. Much less the southern part of Catalonia, whose peasantry had serf status and therefore could not be immigrant but victim of conquest. The pagés, free peasant, is a figure of the North, which can be immigrant or native but constituent of the polities in any case and that's why they were free.

Similarly in Southern Iberia, the huge feudal allotments, that persist to this day, indicate conquest and not colonization, with the conquered peoples becoming serfs (and later landless laborers) of the conqueror warlords.

"There are still many exceptions. For example, North Africa: there were people in the region before 20 Ka, but today 30-50% of mtDNA lineages seem to come from European ancestors".

But this would be in the Paleolithic. It is much easier, no doubt, to leave a mark in the hunter-gatherer context because foragers tend to move out rather easily in case of conflict. Land, territory, is not so important for them as lives.

If the population density of North Africa was low and the flow from SW Europe was strong, I can see how that could happen. And that is a period when Iberia looks like growing a lot in population (while the North gets depopulated) and also North Africa probably experienced an unprecedented demographic growth.

Whatever the case, no farmers yet. I can see such changes happening because populations were small and quite mobile.

"If most opulations have remained the same in the last 10-20-30.000 years, how come we see so big differences between neighboring populations (for example, Basques and Pasiegos)?"

Pasiegos are not a real population but a small isolated district (with a specific medieval founder history). It'd be best to compare Cantabrians and Basques and then the differences exist but are much smaller (logically). Pasiegos are an anomaly.

What I argue for Cantabrians is that there must have been an "Asturianization" in the Magdalenian period, where Catabria and Asturias fall in the same facies, distinct from that of the Basque Country. The Magdalenian is a good period to define differences before "now".

However there are other options: for example an "Asturianization" in the Middle Ages. Hard to be certain.

Whatever the case, West Cantabria clusters culturally with Asturias often in prehistory: I mentioned Magdalenian but also the Bronze Age. However Cantabri (from West Cantabria and East Asturias) were still "Basque enough" to rush in support of their Aquitani "relatives" against Caesar.

"I've seen too many different dates (ranging from 9.000 to 20.000 years old) for the main colonization of N.A. from Europe across the strait of Gibraltar".

I have no idea on what that figure of 9 Ka could be based on. While there are a couple of Cardium Pottery sites in North Morocco, the Neolithic traditions of both sides of the sea are quite different. In North Africa there is continuity with the last Paleolithic culture and we speak of a Capsian Neolithic (Capsian being a Late Paleolithic culture with origin in Upper Egypt via Libya probably, and surely the carrier of Afroasiatic language and identity to the region).

There's no Capsian in Iberia (so here we have at least one period when Gibraltar Strait acts as cultural barrier).

Where is the archaeology in that paper? Nowhere: it's just one of those pseudo-erudite abuses of statistical methods. It lacks any sort of scientific backing for those ages, it's mere statistical speculation with unclear assumptions as foundations.

"but a few years ago an African haplogroup (A1) was found in the isles"...

In what apportions? Erratics are of no or little interest.

And where? Because Razib's comparison was precisely with other Irish and British (and CEU, who are mostly of English ascendancy), which did not show this component.

We need to be able to discern an unclear or clearly trivial anecdote from the relevant data.

The Chleuh or Shilha Berbers have a very typical "aboriginal North African" look (almost Khoisanid or East Asian but not quite) that I would dare to propose representative of the oldest (or one of the oldest) colonizations of NW Africa.

This would be consistent with your proposal (that I deem valid, that fits well with my understanding) of E1b1b1b1 being the oldest identifiable Y-DNA lineage of NW Africa (and particularly of Morocco).

I have confirmed that the people of Amizmiz are Chleuh but I could not find info on Ansi. They may well have different genetic makeups, right?

Alternatively we are before very localized founder effects, on which we cannot build any consistent theory.

There is no particular logic in any case to women migrating across the strait alone, much less when we are witnessing at the same time so quite intense cultural exchange, and when we have the Guanche mummies (already Afroasiatic but peripheral) as witness of greater European Y-DNA in the past.

Y-DNA is subject to greater fluctuations than mtDNA and in some cases these can well be much greater. An interesting example is the gender bias apparently affecting all African populations (except Pygmies and Bushmen mostly).

We must assume that after a European wave colonized NW Africa (Oranian), i admixture with earlier populations, at least another wave (Capsian) distorted the male-female apportions. How exactly? That I leave open to interpretation but there are several possibilities, all them implying different rate of success of males of different ethnic backgrounds.

If E1b1b1b1 was aborigine to NW Africa (as I do think it was the case), we do not see that process happening in relation to the "European" colonization. In fact E1b1b1b1 seems to have weathered very well both the Oranian and the Capsian waves.

E-M81 has a notable structure that defies it's supposedly very recent origin. There's an Algerian cluster that makes up almost half of Algerian E-M81, but very little of Moroccan and Tunisian E-M81. Tunisia and Libya have another cluster that also makes up almost half of their E-M81 samples, yet the cluster almost doesn't exist elsewhere. Morocco doesn't seem to have any local clusters. Western Sahara has yet another cluster that also makes up about half of their E-M81 samples. The Canary Islands' y-dna is about 15% aboriginal, and it looks like their E-M81 lineages included a cluster that was linked to the Western Sahara cluster. Finally, Portugal's E-M81 has 2 local clusters found nowhere else, including Spain. They make up 10% of Portugal's E-M81, and are both found from south to north Portugal.

Somalia has repeatedly shown to have E-M81, and always at the same rate, about 2% ( if I remember right). Its modal is identical to North African E-M81. All these things speak of a more ancient origin.

I think you are already familiar with this paperhttp://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/84

"Regarding population structure in North Africa, the Nm values tended to infinity for most pairs of North African samples, indicating the lack of any barrier to migration in the region. The only exception are the High Atlas Moroccans (Asni), which show a low rate of gene flow as compared to the remaining North African samples in agreement with the extreme position of this population in the PC plots (Figure 3)."Asni and Amizmiz are situated in the vicinity of mount Toubkal , the highest mountain in north Africa, and because of their relative isolation, they probably still retain a great deal of their ancient genetic diversity, and their phenotype may just reflect that....I don't think it is a founder effect thing.the E1b1b1b1 is certainly the "inheritor" of the faux mongoloid look . but, I tend to think , that the old north African phenotype has deep shared roots with the khoisanid one,but, no one can say for sure where it originated....all we know is , that north Africa because its proximity and permanent genetic exchange with Eurasia, lost to a great degree of its originality...up to 45.000 years of genetic flow from Eurasia, it is a wonder that the old phenotype still survives!....you are well aware of the big scams out there,one like the attempt to de-Africanize the E macro haplogroup....or the ridiculous claim about the mideast origins of the E1b1b1b1...etcthose mercenaries probably never knew much about the north african original phenotype, otherwise they won't dare commit such outrageous errors..Eurasians from Europe or west Asia have simply assimilated to the locals , there is no other way around it, they never came in large groups at any time... same thing in Iberia, the E1b1b1b1 assimilated to the locals .Mesolithic, Capsian o, neolithic or whatever...the newcomers assimilate to the local majority....it is just common sense.

when "they" give the silly estimation of 5.600 years to the M-81,the real target here are not the Berbers...it is the west Europeans in general , and the Iberians in particular....

That last you say, Argiedude, is most interesting. Maybe if you formalize that a bit (with sources, etc.) we should add it to the main post as appendix (or even create a new entry).

In any case it does look like the E1b1b1b1 clade has a NW African origin (my bet would be of Aterian chronology but maybe is of Dabban time-frame, less than half as old). Would it be Capsian it'd be just too recent (c. 12 Ka.), it would be hard to explain its presence (and distinctiveness) in West Iberia, and anyhow E1b1b1a1 and J1 look much better candidates to reflect the Capsian wave.

"north Africa because its proximity and permanent genetic exchange with Eurasia, lost to a great degree of its originality...up to 45.000 years of genetic flow from Eurasia, it is a wonder that the old phenotype still survives!...."

Indeed. Still I do believe that a good part of the mtDNA L(xM,N), which makes c. 25% of the matrilineages in NW Africa, has that same archaic origin (Aterian). The usual explanation has been that it's product of the trans-Saharan slave trade but I am quite sure that this is an oversimplification with a good deal of pseudo-romantic Orientalism, even by North African authors themselves. While the specific L(xM,N) lineages are different ones, it is a very similar case in Arabia Peninsula, in what is surely a remnant of the OoA migrations.

While there have been clear flows from Europe, NE Africa and West Asia, NW Africa has managed to keep some of its primeval genetic signature. To these L(xM,N) clades (L3k, L3d1c, L3b1b, L2a1j and maybe others) we must add U6, which surely arrived (as undefined U) with the Dabban industries, coalescing then in NW Africa itself (Morocco has the highest diversity again) and of course the Y-DNA E1b1b1b1.

"you are well aware of the big scams out there,one like the attempt to de-Africanize the E macro haplogroup....or the ridiculous claim about the mideast origins of the E1b1b1b1...etc"

Of course. It is so obviously wrong that it's simply annoying. The same we get re. Afroasiatic languages now and then. In both cases, the bulk of the diversity by far is in Africa and therefore there's where the origin is.

More arguable (for lack of clear evidence) could be the issue of DE origins but parsimony demands an African origin and I defend it.

"Eurasians from Europe or west Asia have simply assimilated to the locals , there is no other way around it, they never came in large groups at any time... same thing in Iberia, the E1b1b1b1 assimilated to the locals. Mesolithic, Capsian o, neolithic or whatever...the newcomers assimilate to the local majority....it is just common sense".

Not necessarily.

In the case of Capsian/Afroasiatic we have it clear that it were the newcomers who eventually assimilated the natives. No pre-Afroasiatic language is known to have persisted in NW Africa historically even though some have suggested some "Vascoid" background words in Berber (they could have also arrived in Chalcolithic times anyhow or even be erroneous identifications).

In the case of the "Oranian wave", we see the "fossil" record of c. 30% SW European mtDNA. This may well mean 30-40% (or maybe even more) of the total pre-Capsian population. And those are (roughly) the levels that I would expect to see European Y-DNA. We do not see that anymore (less than 10% in fact) but we can still identify such apportions in the Guanche mummies (after we remove the Capsian clades E1b1b1a1 and J1), suggesting that I am correct and that European lineages R1b1b2a1 and I (subclades?) were once much more common in the region.

"Indeed. Still I do believe that a good part of the mtDNA L(xM,N), which makes c. 25% of the matrilineages in NW Africa, has that same archaic origin (Aterian). The usual explanation has been that it's product of the trans-Saharan slave trade but I am quite sure that this is an oversimplification with a good deal of pseudo-romantic Orientalism, even by North African authors themselves. While the specific L(xM,N) lineages are different ones, it is a very similar case in Arabia Peninsula, in what is surely a remnant of the OoA migrations."

Interestingly, some L lineages are present in Iberia (and I think, in most Europe) at 2-5%, which is too high to be related with any slave trade, in my opinion.

Oldest modern humans (or something resembling them) found in North Africa date to >160.000 years, and these were using Mousterian industries, althought Aterian has been re-dated to >175.000 years before present recently. These humans couldn't be descended from the OoA, they're simply too old.

Aterian has been re-dated in the last years to c. 90 Ka, maybe a bit earlier. It's roughly contemporary in its origins with the Homo sapiens of Galilee (Skhul and Qahfez) and shares with them some cultural elements such as the use of ornamental Nassarius shells.

I have no idea on what are you arguing for an Aterian of c. 175 Ka. That is definitely too old.

Maybe the dates are wrong, but in any case there were (modern) humans in the region by >160 Ka. Maybe, like M.Mozota says, Aterian isn't a "real" category at all, and there are important differences between the "Aterian" dated 175 Ka and the Aterian dated 90 Ka.

"In the case of Capsian/Afroasiatic we have it clear that it were the newcomers who eventually assimilated the natives. No pre-Afroasiatic language is known to have persisted in NW Africa historically even though some have suggested some "Vascoid" background words in Berber (they could have also arrived in Chalcolithic times anyhow or even be erroneous identifications). "clear ? according to who ? and how ?do you really think that the shlouh highlander was going to drop the language of his ancestors in favour of the one of a goat herder ?did the Basques abandon their ancestral language too, because some neolithic "strangers" shared some basic agricultural knowledge ?and speaking of agriculture, did the Bantu ,the south Asian Indians , the Han , the Japanese or the Amerindians waited for the west Asians to "teach" them their unique craft ?there is no clear answers,but, sure there is no shortage of agendas..."No pre-Afroasiatic language is known to have persisted in NW Africa"Tamazight then, and Tamazight today..."they" can classify and label it all they want, but that is the eternal language of North Africa .

"In the case of the "Oranian wave", we see the "fossil" record of c. 30% SW European mtDNA. This may well mean 30-40% (or maybe even more) of the total pre-Capsian population. And those are (roughly) the levels that I would expect to see European Y-DNA. We do not see that anymore (less than 10% in fact) but we can still identify such apportions in the Guanche mummies (after we remove the Capsian clades E1b1b1a1 and J1), suggesting that I am correct and that European lineages R1b1b2a1 and I (subclades?) were once much more common in the region."

http://209.85.62.24/67/29/0/p303227/Y_dna.jpg

the Oran results are credible, if we compare them to the nearby Bouhria's in notheast Morocco, we see a sharp rise in M-81 ( from 45 % to 77 % ) and a decline in R1b ( 11 % to 5 % )...

explanation : Bouhria is a smal settlement . the 77 % is unusually high for the northern berbers, in theory it should be around 60 %, but, they almost reach the Mozabite level !so, what may have happened ?it is most likely that the founding lineages of the village were M-81....by the time the newcomers joined in , the M-81 carriers were already far ahead ....the only reason Sidi Bouhria was sampled is,it is the closest settlement near Taforalt ....they are part of the ait Iznassen tribe that dominate north eastern Morocco, speakers of Zenata version of Tamazight with close cultural ties with Eastern Rif and Oranie in Algeria....I am sure if other Iznassen locations ,Aklim, Zagzel Madagh, Ahfir,Berkane ...were sampled , it will give us different results , the M- 81 will eventually decline and other haplogroups will go up...if a sampled Kabyle village surprises us one day with some extraordinary results like (40 % R1b, 30 % M-81,18 % I ...) don't make a big deal out of it... it simply means that the founding lineages had the advantage ...please, be cautious when dealing with north Africa, a medium size mountain in the region could have a more complex genetic past than that of a country like Poland .

I forgot totally about those Aterian latest dates. They would indeed (in my opinion at least) be too old for such a derived lineage as E1b1b1b1.

But if those dates are not confirmed, then the 110 Ka. dates known with greater certainty from elsewhere do fit well in my "OoA" scenario.

However, while these "OoA" timeline dates are surely excellent for the mtDNA L(xM,N) lineages mentioned above, Y-DNA E1b1b1b1 poses some problems to fit well in c. 110 Ka. dates:

Even if we take the oldest possible (but unlikely?) OoA dates of c. 130-100 Ka. (which would not go through Arabia surely - or at least lack of Arabian evidence so far) "underived" DE must have existed in that time (and probably also "underived" CDEF, from which CF in Eurasia). So it makes much better sense an scenario in which:

1. OoA2. Migration of E1b1b1 -> E1b1b1b1 to NW Africa (probably as part of a wider E expansion in Africa in general)

With some time in between. Otherwise there's no reason to expect such a derived E lineage to even exist, nor to be the one leading this colonization.

But haplogroup E dominance in Africa is very peculiar to say the least. So I'm undecided.

In any case, the latest I'd expect E1b1b1 (-> E1b1b1b1) to have migrated to NW Africa would be with the Dabban Industries or so. I do think that it makes good sense to have E1b1b1b1 as oldest surviving Y-DNA lineage in NW Africa and almost necessarily before the Oranian-Solutrean "cultural exchange" scenario c. 20 Ka. ago.

"do you really think that the shlouh highlander was going to drop the language of his ancestors in favour of the one of a goat herder ?"

That is not a matter of what I or you think but whether it happened in fact. Berber is a rather homogeneous language (sub)-family suggesting a recent expansion or at least re-homogenization. It belongs to a larger family (Afroasiatic) which is pretty much coincident with the spread of E1b1b1 or E1b1b1a1+J1, depending where you want to put the emphasis. It does not look as Berber has been in the Atlas since Aterian times, nope.

It is very possible. I do not know and may never know with some certainty but the possibility that Basque/Vascoid/Vasco-Iberian has exogenous Neolithic roots is a very real one.

However there is a big difference between Basque/Vascoid/Vasco-Iberian and Berber: that the former does not belong to a wider expansive family as happens with Berber but rather can be considered residual isolates.

I do think that the genetics are mostly pre-Neolithic in both cases but languages are communication tools that serve a practical purpose (besides an identitarian one) and thousands, maybe millions of them, have been lost because the were impractical to maintain (in some cases also because of repression but mostly because of practical reasons).

Languages may change, genes tend to stay.

Or in other words: people can change their language but they cannot change their genes.

"Tamazight then, and Tamazight today..."they" can classify and label it all they want, but that is the eternal language of North Africa".

This is an ideological claim that I cannot but reject. I'm glad that you value your ancestral language and identity so much but you should be a bit more realistic about it, when it formed, how, why... It is still very old stuff but nothing is eternal on Earth.

Thanks for that table, the 16% R1b and the 10% F* (I?) among Kabyles is pretty much notable. It approaches very much the levels of "European" Y-DNA found in the Guanche mummies.

Could you document those tables to their original papers? Just for the reference, thanks.

"it simply means that the founding lineages had the advantage ..."

Assuming for a moment this is right, what about the female lineages? That's my point of contention: I think that female lineages change less than male ones in most circumstances (because some "lucky" men can have very high number of sons, with accumulative effect along generations, while women cannot).

So, if the Y-DNA and the mtDNA do not match, I automatically think that there has been a secondary Y-DNA sweep over a more balanced original scenario.

That is what we see in NW Africa often: 30% "European" mtDNA (or locally even more) and usually not more than 10% "European" Y-DNA. There are exceptions (Kabyles, ancient Guanches) but that seems to be the norm across the region, what strongly suggests that "European" Y-DNA has receded before the push of other lineages.

Exactly why I can't say but I'd think that the Capsian phenomenon is a major cause.

"please, be cautious when dealing with north Africa, a medium size mountain in the region could have a more complex genetic past than that of a country like Poland".

"But if those dates are not confirmed, then the 110 Ka. dates known with greater certainty from elsewhere do fit well in my "OoA" scenario. "

I read in John Hawks weblog that a 110 Ka infant (7-8 years old) skeleton was discovered in Morocco, and it's apparently "an archaic member of our species". But what about Jebel Irhoud and his/her mates? They're unrelated to the OoA expansion? It seems they have some relationship with these levantine skeletons (Skhul/Qafzeh) so maybe they're related in any way?

"With some time in between. Otherwise there's no reason to expect such a derived E lineage to even exist, nor to be the one leading this colonization."

This means the masculine counterparts of these L(xM,N) gone extinct. That's not suprising at all: Ibero-Maurisians seem to be haplogroup IJ which is extremely rare in Europe and North Africa nowadays. Feminine lineages seem to be much more conservative. R1b has replaced other European masculine lineages in western Europe, while mtDNA haplogroups are much more diverse and tell us a different history.

Died of thirst surely. It's a painful but "quick" death: not more than a few days of agony. :p

Alright, just joking. What I mean is that I would not expect them to have left any haploid DNA trace, at least none has been detected to date (unless you'd push all the dates, including the OoA, back some other 50 thousand years - in addition to the previous).

This may be for a number of reasons, probably including a substantial replacement at the time of Aterian arrival and further dilution as other waves arrived later.

"This means the masculine counterparts of these L(xM,N) gone extinct. That's not suprising at all"...

It's somewhat surprising but as a long time and several cultural waves in (low density, high mobility) Paleolithic conditions have passed, it can be seen as plausible.

"That's not suprising at all: Ibero-Maurisians seem to be haplogroup IJ which is extremely rare in Europe and North Africa nowadays".

Uh? Where do you get that from? And do you mean IJ* (unreported) or IJ derived (I and J).

I assume you're talking Y-DNA here as there's no "mtDNA IJ" (would be JT or U8-K if anything).

"R1b has replaced other European masculine lineages in western Europe"...

Maybe (except I) but it did in near-LGM conditions it seems to me: many millennia of a rather stable population of a few thousand people can surely cause such a drift. Between the Aurignacian and the Magdalenian expansion there are c. 25,000 years, what means maybe 1250 generations.

It is very possible that such a drift happened also in North Africa, favoring E1b1b1b1 instead, however it is puzzling that some groups (Kabyles, Ancient Guanches) show higher amounts of "European" Y-DNA (nearing expectations: 27% among Kabyles maybe!). This suggests me that there was some other process in addition to drift: a gender-biased population replacement.

"... while mtDNA haplogroups are much more diverse and tell us a different history".

MtDNA is more diverse always, in all places - except when it is only almost as diverse as Y-DNA - quite rare. Because of the different potential individual fertility of males and females, drift-sweeps happen much more often in Y-DNA. It implies some degree of de facto polygyny but that's no mystery (maybe 10-30% of such excess bias exists all around according to genetic data).

"Died of thirst surely. It's a painful but "quick" death: not more than a few days of agony. :p"

LOL. It's about 11 days, but still I don't consider it "quick". Poor hominids...

"Alright, just joking. What I mean is that I would not expect them to have left any haploid DNA trace, at least none has been detected to date (unless you'd push all the dates, including the OoA, back some other 50 thousand years - in addition to the previous)."

Yes, we have no evidence they left any descendants... but does this mean they all gone extinct?

"This may be for a number of reasons, probably including a substantial replacement at the time of Aterian arrival and further dilution as other waves arrived later. "

Yes... most likely they're quite extinct, but I've read a couple of papers where their skulls are compared with those of other hominids, and they seem to be quite closely related to the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids, so maybe they weren't so thirst :P I still think some Aterian skulls don't look modern at all... althought you don't agree with me, I can't forget these supraorbital ridges, they're just too pronounced, but we still have many hominids within Africa, like these mysterious Idaltu.

"Uh? Where do you get that from? And do you mean IJ* (unreported) or IJ derived (I and J)."

I'm searching and I can't find where did I read it, that this lineage has been found in some Ibero-Maurisians. You're right, that the IJ haplogroup (Y-chromosome) seems to be extinct. Duh, where did I find that? Maybe I was dreaming!?

"MtDNA is more diverse always, in all places - except when it is only almost as diverse as Y-DNA - quite rare. Because of the different potential individual fertility of males and females, drift-sweeps happen much more often in Y-DNA. It implies some degree of de facto polygyny but that's no mystery (maybe 10-30% of such excess bias exists all around according to genetic data)."

It'd be great to recover mtDNA from these ancient North Africans, but it seems most of it has been degraded because of the hot wheather, so we'll need to wait some years before hearing any news, damn...

Regarding North-African influence in Iberia, we often talk about E-M81 which is indeed about 5-6% in Western Iberia but frequencies of North-African female lineages are much more impressive. Total of U6 and L ranges between 5% en 12% in Western Iberia while it is generally between 0 and 3% in Esatern part. There are even regions where L are found at 22% even in this case historical records attributes it to Slave Trade:

Achilli 2007, "Mitochondrial DNA Variation of Modern Tuscans Supports the Near Eastern Origin of Etruscans" which agregates the results of several studies : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852723/table/TB2/

Casas 2006, Human Mitochondrial DNA Diversity in an Archaeological Site in al-Andalus: Genetic Impact of Migrations from North Africa in Medieval Spain http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685727

I have an issue: all your citations but one are pay-per-view (so I have no access to them and cannot see the details) and the only one freely accessible (Achilli 2007) only mentions much lower frequencies of mtDNA U6 in Portugal or West Spain. At most 5%.

On the other hand, the information I have seen re. E1b1b1b1-M81 in West Iberia is that it reaches as much as 9% on average.

I doubt that the variation in frequencies is so important (though it'd be nice to confirm): what is clear is that North African genetics in Iberia, both paternal and maternal are concentrated in the Western half or third: a pattern that is not easy to explain and that I'd attribute to A Solutrean founder effect, related to a parallel Oranian founder effect of Iberian genetics in NW Africa.

Alternatively some might prefer a Neolithic time-frame but I do not find it "most parsimonious" at all.

On the mtDNA L(xM,N), I must say that I am persuaded that some of these penetrated in Iberia (and from there to other places in Europe) from NW Africa as well in the Paleolithic. In NW Africa itself, they would make up the oldest (Aterian) layer - in some cases at least.

I think I have detected an L3d2 lineage in Epipaleolithic Portuguese mtDNA, in addition to other two L3* that could be N* or M* but could also be "African" L3-other.

Of course, there was slave trade in Southern Iberia and North Africa but I am not sure of automatically conceding to such a source without exploring first other possibilities. I am already persuaded that mtDNA L(xM,N), specially L3 variants can be very old in North Africa (and also in Arabia, where L0 variants dominate instead) and therefore spill overs to Iberia or the Fertile Crescent are normal to be expected, even in Paleolithic time frames.

It is not free but I can post the discussion about African influence if you can get interesting information.

African influence

"In the province of Zamora, if the total number of Africanlineages are taken into account (Hgs L1b, L2b, L3, M1, and U6a1a), the contribution represents 5.7% of the total Hg composition. As regards North African lineages,only one mtDNA type belonging to U6a1a Hg was found in the province, more precisely in the Sanabria region. The Ht ZA117 (16172-16183C-16189-16219-16239-16278) is observed in Algeria, Italy, and, inside the Iberian Peninsula,it is found in the North-Western populations of Leon and Cantabria (Larruga et al., 2001; Maca-Meyeret al., 2003; Pereira et al., 2005; van Oven and Kayser, 2009). There is a low frequency of U6 Hg in Iberia, its presence being higher in the North: 5.35% in Northern Portugal, 2.17% in Galicia, and 8.1% in Maragatos(Leon) (Salas et al., 1998; Larruga et al., 2001; Pereiraet al., 2005). Hg M1 is found in Andalusia and Central Portugal although the Ht ZA6 (16093-16129-16148-16183C-16189-16249-16311), found in Campos-Pan, does not correspond to any of the previously detected Ht inIberia. As regards sub-Saharan Hgs (L1b, L2b, and L3b), the high frequency found in the southern regions of Zamora, 18.2% in Sayago and 8.1% in Bajo Duero, is comparable to that described for the South of Portugal, but it doesnot have any parallels with any other analyzed areas in the Northern part of Iberia (Pereira et al., 2005). To try to shed some light on the precedence of sub-Saharan Ht in the Iberian Northern plateau, a shared Ht analysis was conducted. Four individuals typed as L1b, representing two different Ht, were found in the province(three in Sayago and one in Sanabria). Ht ZA1 (16126-16187-16189-16223-16264-16270-16278-16293-16311) is shared mainly with Central-West Africa, North Africa, and Macaronesia. Ht ZA2 (16126-16187-16189-16223-16264-16270-16278-16293-16311-16362) is shared with Macaronesia and Iberian samples. The L2b Ht found in the province corresponds to two individuals from the BajoDuero region, Ht ZA3 (16114A-16129-16213-16223-16278) shared motif with samples from Central-West Africa, Macaronesia, the Iberian Peninsula, and Northern Africa.The two L3b Ht are present in four individuals (one in Bajo Duero and three in Sayago). These share the motif Ht ZA4 (16223-16278-16362) with Central-West Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. On the contrary, Ht ZA5 (16209-16223-16278-16362) is not found in any of the populations considered and differs from the Ht ZA4 by onemutation step. Thus, this Ht could have derived from ZA4 in the peninsula by a new mutation."

"One of the distinctions between the mtDNA compositionof the Iberian Peninsula with respect to other Europeanpopulations is the presence of North African andsub-Saharan lineages [for revision, see Arroyo-Pardo etal. (2007)]. In Zamora, both North African and sub-Saharan mtDNA lineages were found. It has been suggestedthat U6 and M1 Hgs, detected in low frequenciesin Zamora, have been involved in the dispersal of UpperPalaeolithic Levantine people to North Africa along thesouth Mediterranean coastal areas (Olivieri et al., 2006).In this scenario, prehistoric links between North Africaand Iberia could explain the presence of this Hg in theNorthern part of Iberia. The identification of a M1mtDNA African lineage in a Basque necropolis datingback to the 6th–7th centuries (Izagirre et al., 2005) togetherwith cattle from the Bronze Age (Anderung et al.,2005) with mtDNA African lineage support this hypothesis.However, paying heed to the low diversity of theseHg in Iberia, a more recent North African contributionthat claims that it may be due to the flexible procreationbetween Christians and Muslims (females) (Pereiraet al., 2005) is plausible. Another explanation is the relocationof moriscos, a hypothesis recently proposed byAdams et al. (2008) based on Y chromosome data andsupported by historical data available for the studiedregion (Martin, 2003).As regards sub-Saharan lineages, it is well known thatduring the 16th–19th centuries, African slaves were capturedalong the West African Coast and were frequentlytransported to Cape Verde (Macaronesia region). This archipelagoserved, from the beginning of the slave trade,as a kind of platform that connected the African continentto Europe, America, and India from which slaveswere transported to different regions, including the otherMacaronesia archipelagos (Canary, Madeira, and Azores)and mainland Portugal (Comissa˜o Nacional para asComemorac¸o˜es dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, 1999).Thus, paying heed to the sharing Ht analyses, it seemsthat the slave trade, during the 16th–19th centuries,better explains the African sub-Saharan lineages foundin the Iberian Peninsula (including those found in theZamora province). However, in contrast to the welldocumentedpresence of slaves in the Portuguese territories(Comissa˜o Nacional para as Comemorac¸o˜es dosDescobrimentos Portugueses, 1999), the same evidencedoes not exist for mainland Spain. In the Zamora province,there is only one reference to the presence of slavesin the province (Carbajo Martin, 1995). As the Hts foundin the area are also shared with North African populations,we cannot discard the possibility that these lineagesderived from the North African Muslim permanencein the Iberian Peninsula. A great number of Berbertroops relocated their family groups to the gained territories(Salvatierra and Canto, 2008). Thus, this phenomenoncould explain the presence of sub-Saharan lineages."

The paper on Priego de Córdoba (Casas 2006) is simply great to illustrate the debate about the origin of mtDNA L(xM,N) because there is nothing less than 5/61 (or 8/61 if we consider also L3*) individuals with such haplogroups and that is long before the African slave trade really began.

The presence of L(xM,N) in large amounts in parts of Zamora (Álvarez 2010) cannot either be attributed to the slave trade (it's not a plantation area).

I understand therefore that at least a significant fraction of these L(xM,N) matrilineages in Iberia are from times prior to the slave trade and also prior to the Muslim rule (which was weak and brief in Zamora and NW Iberia in general in any case). They must be, at least partly, arrival from NW Africa from earlier times.

If I may, one methodological suggestion: when trying to explain genetic data start first from historical documented facts nearest to present and then bactrack cronologicaly step by step to those fartest and less documented, ending with mythologies and fantasies.

All the "documents" that you provided in the other discussion amount to imaginary figures and fantastic migrations. From the immigration of 8000 families you cannot claim that all the population of the kingdom of Granada was replaced. Yet you do exactly that with an arrogance proper of the worst of the Spanish pseudo-historic academia, for whom "history" is just a means to falsify real history.

There are competing schools of thought surrounding the origin of the Afro-Asiatic languages wither it arose in the Middle East ( aka Southwest Asia) , or in northeast Africa . (generally, between Darfur and Tibesti or in Ethiopia and the other countries of the Horn of Africa).

Both could be to some extent right if we connect the Proto-Afro-Asiatic language with some early J1 population movement to Africa a good example is the spread of Arabic in Africa :first through the newcomers how introduced the language via (Arabian clades J1 and E1 ) followed by the early natives adopters who later spared it to the late adopters (the majority) " usage eventually spread & the number of people in contact with the language increased & the numbers of adopters got bigger and bigger " .

The most Interesting & unique Arabic dialects are: Juba Arabic "Southern Sudan Arabic" & Moroccan Arabic. If given (time) and the right environment they would certainly develop in too new languages.It also should be noted :A- that the bulk of the Arabic dialect diversity is in Africa not the Middle East furthermore most of the Arabic speakers in Africa are haplogroup E.

B- Arabic had deferent functions (religion, trade & communication, culture, prestige etc...).did some of the early J1 migrants to Africa had an advantage over the natives , given that they came from west Asia (the land of early civilization) .

C- it's also fair to presume that the origin and development of Proto-Afro-Asiatic language lies with J1 & E-M78

Finally In the case of the Berber language it was spread via the Caspian clades J1 and E-M78 the newcomers and the early native adopters eventually assimilated the native population, in time the whole of the Maghreb was barbarized "mainly the atlas clade E-M81" Lastly the Arabization of Arabia was probably via trade.

I'm of the opinion that there's no reasonable question about the origin of Afroasiatic languages because the greatest diversity lies in NW Africa, around Sudan and there was a cultural flow northwards and westwards in the Epipaleolithic, which surely explains most of the current distribution of Afroasiatic and E1b1b1a1-M78. However J1 surely was incorporated as well and this probably happened in Egypt, at least for everything non-Semitic.

I think that those who question this theory are mostly racists (explicit or implicit) who would strongly prefer a "white" than a "black" origin for this linguistic and cultural phenomenon and therefore grab even a burning nail if need be.

Also I'd dare say that the cultural package related to Afroasiatic languages, notably circumcision (and the also very common, even if less respected, female genital mutilation) is very much African and not West Eurasian in concept and diffusion, extending well beyond the Afroasiatic area into the Nilotic and Niger-Congo ones (at least).

"the bulk of the Arabic dialect diversity is in Africa not the Middle East furthermore most of the Arabic speakers in Africa are haplogroup E".

Irrelevant because we know that the expansion of Arabic is historical and comes from Arabia peninsula and the Syrian desert.

"west Asia (the land of early civilization)".

Even if it's true that West Asia knew some of the earliest civilizations worldwide, notably (non-Afroasiatic!) Sumeria, this is just a commonplace with no weight in any kind of reasoning you wish to make.

"it's also fair to presume that the origin and development of Proto-Afro-Asiatic language lies with J1 & E-M78"

The latter yes, almost for sure, but J1 probably only played a role in the expansion of Northern Afroasiatic (surely being incorporated in Egypt, at least for Berber). Further South J1 is only found significantly in association with Semitic, which is generally accepted to come from West Asia. On the other hand, J1 is also found (at high frequencies) in areas that have never been Afroasiatic-speaking like Azerbaijan and Daghestan.

Surely we need to understand better the underlying structure of J1, not just in the Caucasus (a different modal haplotype than further south) but in Palestine (my no.1 candidate for the origin of the haplogroup) and North Africa (where a distinct subclade may be dominant). J1 as a whole is probably too old (deep into the Paleolithic) while Afroasiatic is neccesarily more recent (Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic surely).

"Finally In the case of the Berber language it was spread via the Caspian clades J1 and E-M78"...

I'm in agreement with this (but it's spelled Capsian from the Latin name of Gafsa: Capsa - Caspian is an inland sea. I would not mind to use Gafsan instead but the convention is Capsian).

"in time the whole of the Maghreb was barbarized"...

Berberized, "barbarized" would be to make it barbarian, not Berber.

"Lastly the Arabization of Arabia was probably via trade".

I doubt it but I'm unsure because only archaeology can clarify. Semitic languages probably spread from the Circum-Arabian Pastoralist Complex, a PPNB subgroup specialized in sheep herding at the semi-desert and apparently derived from Harifian (the Negev branch of PPNA). As soon as domestic camel was available, these early Semitic tribes no doubt expanded southwards, the same they had expanded in other directions in all lowland West Asia. Arabic is product of the local evolution in Arabia Peninsula (or parts of it, notably the Western Plateau) of this early Semitic expansion surely.

Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Quote: Peer review as practiced today is a form of hazing
-
I’m citing this 2011 opinion piece by Hidde Ploegh (“End the wasteful
tyranny of reviewer experiments”) in a later post, but I wanted to single
out this ...